↓ Skip to main content

New Approaches to Antibiotic Use and Review of Recently Approved Antimicrobial Agents

Overview of attention for article published in Medical clinics of North America, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
14 X users
patent
1 patent

Readers on

mendeley
103 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
New Approaches to Antibiotic Use and Review of Recently Approved Antimicrobial Agents
Published in
Medical clinics of North America, April 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.mcna.2016.03.012
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Antimicrobial drug-resistance continues to force adaptation in our clinical practice. We explore new evidence regarding adjunctive antibiotic therapy for skin and soft tissue abscesses as well as duration of therapy for intra-abdominal abscesses. As new evidence refines optimal practice, it is essential to support clinicians in adopting practice patterns concordant with evidence-based guidelines. We review a simple approach that can 'nudge' clinicians towards concordant practices. Finally, the use of novel antimicrobials will play an increasingly important role in contemporary therapy. We review five new antimicrobials recently FDA-approved for use in drug-resistant infections: dalbavancin, oritavancin, ceftaroline, ceftolozane-tazobactam, and ceftazidime-avibactam.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 101 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 8%
Other 33 32%
Unknown 26 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 40%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 15 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 29 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 September 2019.
All research outputs
#3,433,700
of 34,359,530 outputs
Outputs from Medical clinics of North America
#172
of 1,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,374
of 318,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical clinics of North America
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,359,530 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,722 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,158 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.